If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote: John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500: On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote: With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to design device drivers. Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course. The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by monopoly. You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files. HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to manage printers/scanners. So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer whatever support is needed. The exception here is PostScript, which is the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows environment... Ben Myers Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack Yes Ben Thank You. I usually don't post but this has gone way out of hand. in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this fashion. Your information that I have read from various groups that I visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that info to all that ask. Keep up the good work. John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming "about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it! Hook, line, and sinker. When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people are not so bright and will buy into his FUD. What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software. What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without software to run on them. And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe. So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides printer manufactures. Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress others. Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I. Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail. Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I am indeed on the right track. Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is something Microsoft has no defenses against. And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements. Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to boot. Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception. Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever have a chance. Alright, I must interfere. Be my guest. Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements here (while they can be debated, I like them); but, you did not have to mention any one person at all, even if you are responding to someone's personal view. (And you most definitely did not have to be offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right, with everything you are saying -- including those personal assessments. (Which I don't see how you would know ... by reading someone's posts?) I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way. Make you points, by all means, and do not get personal. (In public. Do whatever you want to do in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any urge to assess people who you are conversing, arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments way more seriously if they are about, well what is talked about, and not about people involved. And honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care less about your attempted psychological profiling. (This is even if you actually knew the person you are talking about.) I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about people who thinks like Ben. Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally offensive, even if you were right. And you *were* very offensive -- even to me, by making me read unconstrained derogatory personal assessments in a thread about computers. Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have. The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is free to slander them all he wants too. The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference? Do you know what I am talking about? Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend, but you two do. Bill in reply to your post to me. I have been around since LIBERATOR so I am not a neophyte. I have prob. forgot more about what you are talking about than you presently know. M$ is only one end of many that are in the field. Those that like them are fine, those that don't like them are fine also. we all have our OHO. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote: John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500: On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote: With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course. The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files. HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows environment... Ben Myers Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work. John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming "about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it! Hook, line, and sinker. When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people are not so bright and will buy into his FUD. What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software. What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without software to run on them. And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe. So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides printer manufactures. Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress others. Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I. Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail. Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I am indeed on the right track. Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is something Microsoft has no defenses against. And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements. Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to boot. Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception. Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever have a chance. Alright, I must interfere. Be my guest. Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements here (while they can be debated, I like them); but, you did not have to mention any one person at all, even if you are responding to someone's personal view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right, with everything you are saying -- including those personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how you would know ... by reading someone's posts?) I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way. Make you points, by all means, and do not get personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any urge to assess people who you are conversing, arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments way more seriously if they are about, well what is talked about, and not about people involved. And honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care less about your attempted psychological profiling. (This is even if you actually knew the person you are talking about.) I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about people who thinks like Ben. Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were* very offensive -- even to me, by making me read unconstrained derogatory personal assessments in a thread about computers. Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have. The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is free to slander them all he wants too. The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference? Do you know what I am talking about? Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend, but you two do. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's statements, and you are defending them. (Correct? I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something different altogether. I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition, to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd add, since you respond with statements that are very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And you so insist on them.) I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think about where you may be coming from. But then again, maybe we wish to move this discussion *outside of this forum.* I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be rather about other things, but I am not sure which. (Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote: John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500: On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote: With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course. The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files. HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows environment... Ben Myers Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work. John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming "about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it! Hook, line, and sinker. When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people are not so bright and will buy into his FUD. What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software. What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without software to run on them. And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe. So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides printer manufactures. Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress others. Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I. Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail. Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I am indeed on the right track. Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is something Microsoft has no defenses against. And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements. Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to boot. Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception. Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever have a chance. Alright, I must interfere. Be my guest. Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements here (while they can be debated, I like them); but, you did not have to mention any one person at all, even if you are responding to someone's personal view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right, with everything you are saying -- including those personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how you would know ... by reading someone's posts?) I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way. Make you points, by all means, and do not get personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any urge to assess people who you are conversing, arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments way more seriously if they are about, well what is talked about, and not about people involved. And honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care less about your attempted psychological profiling. (This is even if you actually knew the person you are talking about.) I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about people who thinks like Ben. Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were* very offensive -- even to me, by making me read unconstrained derogatory personal assessments in a thread about computers. Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have. The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is free to slander them all he wants too. The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference? Do you know what I am talking about? Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend, but you two do. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's statements, and you are defending them. (Correct? I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something different altogether. I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition, to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd add, since you respond with statements that are very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And you so insist on them.) I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think about where you may be coming from. But then again, maybe we wish to move this discussion *outside of this forum.* I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be rather about other things, but I am not sure which. (Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote: John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500: On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote: With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course. The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files. HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows environment... Ben Myers Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work. John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming "about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it! Hook, line, and sinker. When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people are not so bright and will buy into his FUD. What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software. What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without software to run on them. And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe. So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides printer manufactures. Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress others. Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I. Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail. Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I am indeed on the right track. Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is something Microsoft has no defenses against. And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements. Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to boot. Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception. Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever have a chance. Alright, I must interfere. Be my guest. Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements here (while they can be debated, I like them); but, you did not have to mention any one person at all, even if you are responding to someone's personal view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right, with everything you are saying -- including those personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how you would know ... by reading someone's posts?) I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way. Make you points, by all means, and do not get personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any urge to assess people who you are conversing, arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments way more seriously if they are about, well what is talked about, and not about people involved. And honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care less about your attempted psychological profiling. (This is even if you actually knew the person you are talking about.) I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about people who thinks like Ben. Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were* very offensive -- even to me, by making me read unconstrained derogatory personal assessments in a thread about computers. Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have. The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is free to slander them all he wants too. The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference? Do you know what I am talking about? Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend, but you two do. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's statements, and you are defending them. (Correct? I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something different altogether. I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition, to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd add, since you respond with statements that are very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And you so insist on them.) I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think about where you may be coming from. But then again, maybe we wish to move this discussion *outside of this forum.* I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be rather about other things, but I am not sure which. (Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:23:22 -0800 (PST), Zack
wrote: On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote: Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): ---snip---- Well I'm going to pick on your post but actually this is really meant to everyone who wants to repond to your post... bill, ben, etc.... I guess I'm going to have to say what is the OBVIOUS advice now.... "take this stuff to email" so this newsgroup can get back to it's norm. No Zack I'm not trying to really pick on you but I don't feel like repeating this post to several people simultaneously so I'm picking on your last post g..... nothing personal, I promise !! Last I realize I'm no angel since I stray off topic too but I'm still working on that g. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 26, 6:33*pm, RnR wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:23:22 -0800 (PST), Zack wrote: On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote: Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST): *---snip---- Well I'm going to pick on your post but actually this is really meant to everyone who wants to repond to your post... bill, ben, etc.... I guess I'm going to have to say what is the OBVIOUS advice now.... "take this stuff to email" *so this newsgroup can get back to it's norm. * No Zack I'm not trying to really pick on you but I don't feel like repeating this post to several people simultaneously so I'm picking on your last post g..... * nothing personal, I promise !! Last I realize I'm no angel since I stray off topic too but I'm still working on that g. Good call, this is in fact what I suggest in my last post. I have never done any thing like this in a forum, but I felt I had to say things. Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three times! I mean really. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
(Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^)
Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three times! I mean really. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 27, 5:01*am, wrote:
(Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^) Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three times! *I mean really. Thank you for saying that! I will try again to find how to do it. (I did try once, in vain, but apparently I gave up to early. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
On Nov 28, 2:11*pm, Zack wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:01*am, wrote: (Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^) Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three times! *I mean really. Thank you for saying that! *I will try again to find how to do it. (I did try once, in vain, but apparently I gave up to early. Zack, if you're signed in to GooGroups and you go for More options...then choose Remove. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
OT Freeware Partition software
you can use AOMEI Partition Assistant repartiton your boot drivein Windows 7/vista/8/xp. you can use its home edition which is free to help you manage your disk well. http://www.disk-partition.com/free-p...n-manager.html
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT (maybe, maybe not): freeware utility software | RnR[_2_] | Dell Computers | 9 | August 9th 08 07:35 PM |
freeware lan control software | scully | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | November 27th 07 03:08 PM |
BEst freeware OCR software? | MG | Scanners | 3 | September 16th 06 06:33 PM |
Freeware Partition Management | Grinder | General | 10 | August 17th 05 10:28 PM |
ISO freeware PC monitor software | Brian Link | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | November 27th 03 08:36 AM |